Prev: when does the system send SIGKLILL
Next: A tool that suggests optimized logic for a piece of code/module/function
From: Andy on 15 Jan 2010 17:32 On Jan 14, 9:57 am, David Brown <da...(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > I don't agree here (perhaps as a compiler writer you are thinking of > "implementation" in terms of generated target code - then I'd agree). > Kids use Logo to learn about programming concepts, and how to get the > computer to do what you want it to do. They learn to write things like: > > TO SQUARE :size > REPEAT 4 [ FD :size RT 90 ] > END > > This is entirely about writing an imperative implementation of how you > want the system to draw a square. > > Compare this to a sample program in a real functional programming > language, Haskell: > > factorial 0 = 1 > factorial n = n * factorial(n - 1) > > Here you tell the system what you want - you give a mathematical > description of the results. You don't care how it gets them - maybe it > uses recursion, maybe it uses iteration, maybe it builds up a cache of > calculated values as it goes along. > The LOGO interpreter/compiler is just as free to implement alternative solutions to drawing a square as the Haskell compiler is of altering the described recursive implementation of a factorial. Whether the compiler is smart enough to do so has nothing to do with the language being "procedural" or "functional". Andy
From: Jasen Betts on 16 Jan 2010 03:28 On 2010-01-15, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I'm guessing you're trying to be funny/ironic. But in case you aren't, > Unix has dozens of stranglely incompatible Command Line Interfaces > that Unix people call "shells". None of them are word processors. emacs comes close. :) --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Nick Keighley on 18 Jan 2010 05:34 On 15 Jan, 16:43, dj3va...(a)csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote: > In article <5de738e1-b64c-470c-a097-4020a2397...(a)j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >On 13 Jan, 16:43, dj3va...(a)csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote: > >> In article <4b4def88$0$22938$e4fe5...(a)news.xs4all.nl>, > >> [Jongware] <so...(a)no.spam.net> wrote: > >> >Aha -- wouldn't the logical end point be a programming language where > >> >you type "word processor", save it as source, compile, and have a word > >> >processor? > > >> Why bother to compile it? Just have it interpret on-the-fly. > >> That way you could even run it in interactive mode, and it's > >> sufficiently high-level that even non-programmers could usefully use > >> it. > > >> Unix people call this a "shell". > > >I'm guessing you're trying to be funny/ironic. But in case you aren't, > >Unix has dozens of stranglely incompatible Command Line Interfaces > >that Unix people call "shells". None of them are word processors. > > Right. > But all of them have the property that I can get a word processor by > typing the name of a word processor that's installed on the system. I thought you were claiming Unix uniquely had some sort of VHLL. Apart from the weird embedded ones, don't *all* OSs have a way to run the programs that are installed on them? Wasn't jongware suggesting something even more magical? The VHLL that can create appications that aren't stored on the machine? > My point was that the "primitives" provided by a shell (the programs > installed on the system) give a pretty good approximation to > [Jongware]'s suggestion of "type 'word processor' and get a word > processor".
From: Lie Ryan on 20 Jan 2010 00:19 On 01/18/10 21:34, Nick Keighley wrote: > Wasn't jongware suggesting something even more magical? The VHLL that > can create appications that aren't stored on the machine? app-get, emerge, yum?
From: toby on 24 Jan 2010 19:28
On Jan 18, 5:34 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 15 Jan, 16:43, dj3va...(a)csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote: > > > > > > > In article <5de738e1-b64c-470c-a097-4020a2397...(a)j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > > Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >On 13 Jan, 16:43, dj3va...(a)csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalid wrote: > > >> In article <4b4def88$0$22938$e4fe5...(a)news.xs4all.nl>, > > >> [Jongware] <so...(a)no.spam.net> wrote: > > >> >Aha -- wouldn't the logical end point be a programming language where > > >> >you type "word processor", save it as source, compile, and have a word > > >> >processor? > > > >> Why bother to compile it? Just have it interpret on-the-fly. > > >> That way you could even run it in interactive mode, and it's > > >> sufficiently high-level that even non-programmers could usefully use > > >> it. > > > >> Unix people call this a "shell". > > > >I'm guessing you're trying to be funny/ironic. But in case you aren't, > > >Unix has dozens of stranglely incompatible Command Line Interfaces > > >that Unix people call "shells". None of them are word processors. > > > Right. > > But all of them have the property that I can get a word processor by > > typing the name of a word processor that's installed on the system. > > I thought you were claiming Unix uniquely had some sort of VHLL. Compared to C, bash *is* a VHLL. Rewrite this in C: grep -i blah.log |cut -d ' ' -f 4,7 |cut -c 2-12,23-36 |sort |uniq -c - i > Apart > from the weird embedded ones, don't *all* OSs have a way to run the > programs that are installed on them? > > Wasn't jongware suggesting something even more magical? The VHLL that > can create appications that aren't stored on the machine? > > > My point was that the "primitives" provided by a shell (the programs > > installed on the system) give a pretty good approximation to > > [Jongware]'s suggestion of "type 'word processor' and get a word > > processor". |